http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/29/self-defense-study/
Hope this is not a dupe... link above has video of simulation.
If you live in the United States, you have probably have heard the phrase, “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” This bit of nonsense touted by firearms fanatics does not hold up in the real world.
A new study found that ordinary people with varying degrees of experience using guns were not able to protect themselves from being shot or stop a crime from being committed during multiple runs through a training simulator.
The study was a joint effort between the gun safety advocacy group, National Gun Victims Action Council, and researchers at the Mount St. Mary’s University. The study was held over two days and consisted of 77 ordinary people who were forced to make tough decisions about what to do in an extreme situation while armed. They were compared to police officers who have extensive firearms training.
The group released a statement on the study’s findings, saying
Now, the idea that a person should have training to carry a gun on them probably doesn’t sound too farfetched for most people. I have a hard time believing the notion that a training requirement to carry a gun in public would be controversial to many gun owners. However, many states seem to find the idea absurd. Many states don’t care if minors carry guns in public without any training. To me, people should find that to be not only terrifying, but also a national embarrassment.
Hope this is not a dupe... link above has video of simulation.
If you live in the United States, you have probably have heard the phrase, “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” This bit of nonsense touted by firearms fanatics does not hold up in the real world.
A new study found that ordinary people with varying degrees of experience using guns were not able to protect themselves from being shot or stop a crime from being committed during multiple runs through a training simulator.
The study was a joint effort between the gun safety advocacy group, National Gun Victims Action Council, and researchers at the Mount St. Mary’s University. The study was held over two days and consisted of 77 ordinary people who were forced to make tough decisions about what to do in an extreme situation while armed. They were compared to police officers who have extensive firearms training.
The group released a statement on the study’s findings, saying
“Using the same advanced simulating system that Prince George’s County police officers train with, volunteer participants were placed in three real-life scenarios—a carjacking, an armed robbery and a suspected larceny.
Participants already had their guns drawn so they would not lose time retrieving them from holsters. Shooter’s reactions, including judgment and accuracy, were measured and recorded.
In the carjacking scenario, most if not all gun carriers would have been “killed,” regardless of their training level. In the armed robbery scenario, all the carriers who engaged the robbers got “killed.” (Many did not engage because the robbers did not see them so they didn’t feel threatened.) In the larceny scenario, no one was “killed” because the suspect did not have a gun. However, the unarmed suspect was “killed” by overzealous carriers who used lethal force before ascertaining whether he had a gun.
In all scenarios, civilians, including trained ones, were unable to approach the accuracy and judgment of trained police officers.”
Joe Vince, Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Mount St. Mary’s said:Participants already had their guns drawn so they would not lose time retrieving them from holsters. Shooter’s reactions, including judgment and accuracy, were measured and recorded.
In the carjacking scenario, most if not all gun carriers would have been “killed,” regardless of their training level. In the armed robbery scenario, all the carriers who engaged the robbers got “killed.” (Many did not engage because the robbers did not see them so they didn’t feel threatened.) In the larceny scenario, no one was “killed” because the suspect did not have a gun. However, the unarmed suspect was “killed” by overzealous carriers who used lethal force before ascertaining whether he had a gun.
In all scenarios, civilians, including trained ones, were unable to approach the accuracy and judgment of trained police officers.”
“For citizens to realistically defend themselves they must have a high skill level. To attain that level requires extensive initial training in the classroom, on the firing range and with real-life scenarios. To maintain such levels, semi-annual skill maintenance training, like what police officers go through, is required.”
This study, along with other research from a recently released study conducted by Harvard University shows that there probably isn’t much a person can do that will be helpful when carrying a gun, unless they have extensive training.
Now, the idea that a person should have training to carry a gun on them probably doesn’t sound too farfetched for most people. I have a hard time believing the notion that a training requirement to carry a gun in public would be controversial to many gun owners. However, many states seem to find the idea absurd. Many states don’t care if minors carry guns in public without any training. To me, people should find that to be not only terrifying, but also a national embarrassment.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
